Patriot Vassar Bushmills thought provokingly delves into both sides of the debate of the Article V Constitutional Convention and Nullification. Regardless of where anyone stands, Vassar’s post is a worthy read and gives one plenty food for thought.
About a year ago I got involved in the Article V constitutional convention debate, such as there is one. I came at it through the back door, stemming from a debate between Mark Levin and Randy Barnett on one side, and Publius Huldah on the other, over Nullification. The concept of Nullification, by which a state, or the states, just by saying “no” to a federal law, can negate it, is often put forward as a better method to fix out-of-control government than the constitutional convention method. Levin and Barnett argue that Nullification is not only not legal, but Madison, among others, was against it. It was here I stepped in citing what I felt was an undeniable justification for Nullification, citing my favorite case on point, the Declaration of Independence, or, as they call it at the War College, Continental Congress v George III (1776).
So I wrote The Final Word on Nullification is That there is no Final Word.
Please read it, as I just reread it and wouldn’t change a word of it, and it expresses my opinion about Nullification vs the Art V process to a tee.
Since that time, I’ve been stuck between a rock and hard place….
Via Grumpy Opinions.
Would you care to engage Vassar on the concept of Nullification? Please feel free to do so here or here.